According to information presented on Messari.io’s OnChainFx rankings, Bitcoin accounted for nearly $580 thousand USD in fees in the last 24 hours. On May 10, 2019, at 9:50 am UTC, Bitcoin miners earned more than eight times the transaction fees than the combined total of all other cryptocurrencies listed on the site.
the value of bitcoin transactions will increase as the network grows strong enough to clear trillions in fiat. fee percentages around 1.5% have been fairly stable throughout the history of bitcoin. There is no theoretical limit to the amount of value which can be placed in a single transaction as long as the mining ecosystem is strong enough to secure it.
Yet BTC rallied hard while it tooks days for alts to catch up. Sure, this might mean people pay more to transfer bitcoins than alts. But it also means people are fine with paying more to transfer bitcoin than alts because there's a bigger demands to deal in BTC than in alts. Which is good for BTC.
I just explain to the average joe how only retards think of bitcoin as some sort of paypal competitor.
You just don't spend a sovereign SOV that can't be censored or reversed on frivolous things like coffee.
If bitcoin has high transaction fees then most people would say that fiat money is superior, even with the inflation issue. That's why I say low transaction fees are beneficial overall. It brings more people into the network and encourage bitcoin to be used as a medium of exchange.
In economics, Gresham's law is a monetary principle stating that "bad money drives out good". For example, if there are two forms of commodity money in circulation, which are
accepted by law as having similar face value, the more valuable commodity will gradually disappear from circulation.The law was named in 1860 by Henry Dunning Macleod, after Sir Thomas Gresham (1519–1579), who was an English financier during the Tudor dynasty. However, the concept itself had been previously expressed by others, including by Aristophanes in his play The Frogs, which dates from around the end of the 5th century BC, in the 14th century by Nicole Oresme c. 1350, in his treatise On the Origin, Nature, Law, and Alterations of Money, and by jurist and historian Al-Maqrizi (1364–1442) in the Mamluk Empire; and in 1519 by Nicolaus Copernicus in a treatise called Monetae cudendae ratio For this reason, it is occasionally known as the Gresham–Copernicus law.
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
I think the average joe is still only interested speculating, so hodling is adoption.
so about spending it. I once paid 0.2btc for a pizza, and then the price doubled the next day. With deflation like that, I think you'd spend only if you have to. Opposite happens with hyper inflation.
> With deflation like that, I think you'd spend only if you have to. Opposite happens with hyper inflation.
What do you think happens to "consumerism" when your money is worth more tomorrow than it is today?
Would you spend bitcoin on a car you have to replace in 5 years? If you absolutely *had* to spend money on such a car, how many years would you try to keep it?
Would you spend bitcoin on clothes that wear out after 5 washes? Or clothes that you could repair and might last decades?
Why spend bitcoin on food that you can grow yourself?
Bitcoin represents a fundamental shift in how our culture and economy operate. The joke about the bitcoin lambo is that ... once you have enough bitcoin to buy a lambo, you realize you really don't want to buy a lambo any more. Some will, most won't.
Most will say this is a bad thing, because jobs.
I say this is a good thing, if we want the planet to be a livable place for our grandchildren.
As a plus, adverts will become less and less effective as people will stop being easily persuaded to spend their money on junk.
Not only will we have less ads, but we'll filter out all the bullshit products as well, leaving behind only the best products/services which can compel us to part with our coins.
The future is bright!
IMO, most people are purely speculation. Even the hodling crowd is mostly speculation to a certain extent. So obvious when people are talking about lambo this and lambo that. They view it as get rich quick basically. I don't care if people do that but honestly if you want the price to go higher, it will have to be form real adoption occurring where people are using it as a medium of exchange.
I don't really buy into the whole deflation/inflation theory. So when there is deflation, you stop spending or reduce spending but what about when there is inflation? You suddenly rush to buy stuff? I think more realistic is people will spend the bitcoin then just go to some exchange to buy more.
Yes, that's the theory but it doesn't really apply to bitcoin right now because bitcoin isn't really used as a medium of exchange. The inflation/deflation theory only really applies to currencies. Bitcoin is viewed more as a speculative investment instead, similar to a commodity.
Wait, LN *still* isn't a thing? Two years ago at the height of the bubble when fees were so high you'd have to pay $5 in fees to buy a $1 coffee, everyone was saying LN adoption was "right around the corner."
I don't quite understand why so few seem to understand the dynamic between mining fees and hashrate.
You want miners to be very well paid. What Bitcoin brings to the table -- that nobody else does -- is the cold fact of being the single greatest operator of hashing power on the planet. This is the only thing other than brand that sets it apart from the competition.
If miners aren't well paid, then hash power drops. Let it drop enough and bitcoin becomes susceptible to various computational attacks. Loss of trust is one of the very few things that actually could destroy it.
Who cares if you can buy coffee with it? That's what the shitcoins are for. You can't buy coffee with gold or silver, either, but that doesn't stop precious metals from forming the backbone of global currency.
So do you view lightning network as a threat then? You can use lightning network and basically pay zero transaction fees. If more people used it then in theory mining fees on the main net would be reduced.
Yes I do. The whole block size debate is the first time I ever had any marked concern for bitcoin's future.
Thought experiment: The problem here is that if the price drops enough (which could *very* easily happen especially as the big industrial-scale financial monsters move into this space), then the block reward may not be enough to maintain mining capacity. Miners will idle their rigs if they can't at least pay electricity costs, meaning the hash rate will drop. Let it drop enough, and the checksum becomes increasingly vulnerable to a double-spend or other corruption, driving the price even further down in a self-reinforcing loop. At some point, a competing blockchain will attract enough mining power or users to become the dominant global blockchain, and bitcoin will more like bitcoin cash is today.
If you have decent mining fees (at least enough to pay for electricity) then the miners will not have to idle their rigs no matter how low the price goes.
The other problem here is that the block reward diminishes over time.
What incentive is there to continue mining when no more bitcoins are created?
...and what happens to mining fees when transactions pass for couple pennies or less?
> those shitcoins will have zero purpose.
Classic mistake right here. Several of those shitcoins have some interesting ideas and active development. Ethereum, for example, has a lot of interesting work behind it, and a branch at some point could constitute a material threat to Bitcoin.
No. The one thing Bitcoin has that nobody else does is a stranglehold on focused planetary computing power. Without this, Bitcoin will be superseded by one or more of those shitcoins.
If one of those shitcoins figures how to reward miners better than Bitcoin (over the long term, not the short), I would suggest diversifying into that shitcoin sooner rather than later.
Miners aren't everything. You need users and devs as well. A coin can fail due to lack of any of those. But mining is something a lot of coins don't seem to pay much attention to, and a lot of people in the bitcoin world don't seem to recognize the importance of mining.
Without that hash power, we have nothing.
I've done enough to know it is not a particularly mature product or community.
But it is one of the few altcoins that actually has potential.
I expect 2.0, and 3.0, and 4.0 ... eventually. Each step represents incremental improvement.
It can already be used for that, of course. What people need to realize is that the holy grail is when people use bitcoin as almost like a checking account. You get paid, your employer deposits the bitcoin directly to your wallet address. From there, you can pay all your bills - utilities, cell phone, grocery shopping , online shopping etc. directly from that wallet. If people used bitcoin like this then the value of each individual bitcoin would probably skyrocket. Luckily we have lightning network so something like this is actually practical now. All it takes is people actually using it for that. People need to buy/sell using lightning network and the community here needs to support those merchants. It is win-win for everyone here.
I hate when I read some comments on here where people limit their perspective to viewing bitcoin as an e-gold and then scoff at using it as a medium of exchange for daily buying.
> If people used bitcoin like this then the value of each individual bitcoin would probably skyrocket.
Those people would create constant sell pressure and the price would likely crater.
Stop limiting your perspective by only seeing bitcoin as a paypal competitor.
No it wouldn't. Millions or billions of people would be holding a certain amount of bitcoin in their "checking account" so to speak. These people would ultimately have to buy into the network to begin with. Price would definitely skyrocket.
Also bitcoin can be a store of value and a paypal competitor. It is not mutually exclusive.
Sure go for it. Anyone can use bitcoin as they see fit. The fee market will decide if it make sense. Just be aware that merchant adoption has been tried since 2012 and it failed long before the fees went high.
Rational people keep asking themselves: Whats the point of it?
Currently merchants are forced to immediately convert to fiat for accounting purposes. so bitpay, coinbase, Gemini, etc are market selling bitcoin on your behalf.
Banks are fine with this type of merchant adoption because the money stays in the fiat system and banks make money on your fiat to bitcoin to fiat (via the purchase of goods and services) conversions.
Now, if you just hodl bitcoin then the banks do have a problem. Fractional reserve banking would come crashing down when just 5% of the people withdraw from the fiat system and store their wealth in bitcoin. Spending your bitcoin on things that don't run the risk of being censored of reversed does not aid that goal.
A sovereign store of value. So a practical, digital version of gold.
Bitcoin won't get there by pretending to be paypal.
What would improve bitcoin's appeal as a SOV would be the proof of immutability application. So countries securing their land registry via the bitcoin blockchain would increase bitcoin's appeal as a SOV. luckily for us bitcoiners, it is already used for this;)
Making data tamper proof is a huge selling point for bitcoin. It can help make data (and people) fraud and corruption resistant.
I think Proof of data integrity is a more attractive selling point then being able to buy coffee.
You are right that spending bitcoin on products that don't run the risk of being censored or reversed is fun but it is important to acknowledge that this is not bitcoin's end goal. It is merely a proof of concept use case.
If you want to pump a coin then low fees are a great tool to trick noobs into losing their money on a shitcoin.
long term, low fees only work if you centralize your coin or you just don't care about it's survival.
There are some coins that have more tx per day than bitcoin https://blocktivity.info/
Low fees do speak favorably for alts. At some point it may be cheaper and quicker to pay via an alt if it's accepted by payment processor. Certainly not keeping a lot of money in digibyte, dash, or xmr but they do work for paying for things and have low fees to send them.
Low fees are the benefits of centralized shitcoins, sure. But lack of centralization definitely makes fees of 8x more worth it for BTC, in my opinion.
The whole point of BTC is to eliminate the middleman as well as to eliminate inflation. You don't eliminate the middleman with XMR. The middleman does exactly the same as central banks. In fact while they claim there is a cap to ripple, there really isn't. They can print them endlessly. They will do just that and mass sell them when the price increases to what they deem favorable. And nothing stops them from doing so.
I can only imagine how heavily ripple's price rides on speculation, even harder than BTC's.
There may be no fees but some anti-spam proof of work for user to do. So perhaps the sender's device has to churn for a minute to send the transaction. If there is no anti-spam then it may be to nano's detriment. I don't know how it works. raiblocks it used to be called and bitgrail got "hacked" so someone is sitting on a shit ton of free raiblocks they can dump. It doesn't sync without downloading the booster file - not very decentralized. And it's not the only DAG coin - byteball was distributed for free to BTC holders.
An infinite amount of zeroes will never go above zero, so it is zero.
Zero infinities means no infinity at all, same as zero amount of anything else, so that is zero too.
(*Of course multiplication is commutative, I'm merely providing two different interpretations.)
Side note: What *is* generally undefined indeed is 0 to the power of 0. It is defined as 1 only in certain contexts (which admittedly are quite large in regards of fields of mathematics, eg Google will claim that it is 1 in its integrated calculator), but not in all contexts.
Out of curiosity, how do you get 0^0 =1?
I understand how x^0 =1, just not when x=0.
Edit: looked it up on Wikipedia and realized that shit is just too complicated for Monday morning.
Absolutely arguing that. Infinity isn't a number, it's a concept. And it has never been able to be proven that it follows the exact same rules of arithmetic that finite numbers do. It's just not the same.
I agree about the concept - and that's why if you have zero occurances of that concept, then you just don't have it and also you have none of its implications:
If you look at any arbitrary position in your equation to check whether infinity occurs in it, and you find it exactly zero times (at any location), then it is simply not there.
In other words, if I ask you "How many times did you add infinity to that '1' you wrote down earlier?" and you reply "Oh zero times, I didn't want to add it." then what do you have there? Exactly '1' still. Not an indeterminate expression.
This is all well and good but this is just your opinion. You can tell me all day long that adding an infinite number of zeros is zero, but that's not provable mathematically. Even if your logic makes sense, it could never be carried out in practice, because adding an infinite number of things in finite time isn't possible.
I'm siding with calculus, which is rigid and provable. Limits are quantifiable, and limits to infinity or limits of x -> zero that deal with division by x are quantifiable. Your example is mere logical conjecture, but it's not provable in an algebraic sense whatsoever. Until you can come up with an algebraic/calculus proof that somehow rules out what we already know and says that infinity times zero is zero (which you won't be able to do), infinity times zero is an indeterminate form.
Do you believe that 0 divided by 0 is indeterminate? Let's assume for a second that 0/0 = 1. Then 0/(0/0) = (1/0) which gives us (0/1) = 1/0) which gives us infinity = 0? And infinity\*0 really is equivalent to saying 1/0 \* 0 = 0/0. So there's a contradiction straight up with saying that 0/0 isn't indeterminate, and saying 0/0 isn't indeterminate is the same as saying infinity\*0 isn't indeterminate. By contradiction we've proven that it has to be, otherwise all mathematical connections are thrown out the window.
But how though? It doesn’t matter what the number is. Anything multiplied by 0 is 0 (in the case of infinity as close to its limit as possible but not actually 0 but I support this exception in that infinity is more of a concept (while still being a number?) but is actually not a tangible number)! Why is common sense not good enough to suffice as an answer for this problem?
Say I had a pie, and I wanted to share it with some friends. To do that, I decide to divide the pie up so everyone can get some. So with 10 people, each person gets a tenth of the pie; with 100 people a hundredth, etc.
1 pie / 10 people = 0.1 pies/person
1 pie / 100 people = 0.01 pies/person
1 pie / 1000 people = 0.001 pies/person
Let's say I'm so popular that I have an infinite number of friends, so I have to slice the pie up into an infinite number of slices. Each slice ends up being infinitely small, so we'll call them zero.
1 pie / inf people = 0 pies/person
Now that's not much pie per person, but adding more pies doesn't really help us because any finite number of pies will be obliterated by my infinite friends.
10 pies / inf people = 0 pies/person
100 pies / inf people = 0 pies/person
1000 pies / inf people = 0 pies/person
Now here's a question: if every person in our infinitely large group gets zero parts of pie, how many pies did we start with?
inf people * 0 pies/person = ? pies
Is it 1? 10? 100? 1000? Is it zero? Turns out it could be any of them; they all satisfy the equation. That's why (0 \* inf) is considered indeterminate; there's an infinite number of answers that satisfy it.
I’m really not satisfied with that answer because even if I had infinitely many friends I still have the same finite number, let’s say 2, of pies. I really don’t understand why you come to this conclusion of ‘oh we don’t know how many pies we have started with’...yes you do. Open your eyes and look at the table. You have two pies.
I don’t care even if you attempt to give your infinitely many friends a single atom of their pie which will give them their slice. Oh...but there are still a finite number of atom slices here. Also, your mathematical analogy doesn’t work anyway because 1 or any finite number divided by infinity will only approach zero because infinity is ever expanding but the result will never actually be 0 this implying we do in fact have a finite number of pies Or even fractions of pies to start with.
Plus, trying to work backwards like that disregards the fact of our limit case because our infinite division of a finite resource will always hit the physical limit of the contents of such resources thus proving that we already know how many pies or fractions of pies we have to work with(either the whole two pies or the physical limit of their quantified atoms)...otherwise we could not even ask this question.
You know how many pies you have because you *already know the starting conditions*. You're not actually solving anything. If you *didn't* know the starting conditions, there's no way to use the equation to arrive at them, because every answer is just as valid. The analogy is there to demonstrate this inconsistency, and isn't intended to be perfect (if it was perfect, it wouldn't be an analogy).
The fundamental point is this: infinity isn't a number. You can't treat it like it is a number, and you'll get inconsistencies and contradictions if you do. As such, asking what "0 * infinity" equals isn't meaningful, even though it's possible to kinda sorta pretend that it is if you squint hard enough.
Well if you are trying to approach this problem from a pure maths perspective based on the ‘concept’ of infinity alone than it will always fail because the domain of this problem is in physical reality and not abstract space. Why would you even try to derive an answer about physical reality anyway from a pure maths context when the two domains literally do not perfectly intersect?
So we have arrived at two perfectly true and acceptable answers: the real applied solution, being what I outlined above about limits in our reality (and since we live here why do we care about abstract space when our reality is not entirely abstract!), and then the futile purely conceptual approach (because it’s pure math) to an actual system, our reality.
Sure, you can derive and confuse yourself all you want with pure maths but the context we are addressing this problem in is not in the realm of pure maths and as such cannot reasonably be asked because pure maths in this sense has no relation to or system to work with for the question about pies to be asked. Because in pure math there is no pie other than 3.14 (a pun here), in other words the notion of this physical pie and actually solving the problem by distributing it to my friends has no meaning in pure math and here is where I identify our disconnect.
Your comment about trying to squint seems to want to disregard practical/applied mathematics when in fact you actually supporting my case because you agree with my observation in the practical physical context. You are still holding your position in the pure maths domain and you are right to do so, and I also agree,...but this reality I’m afraid is not ‘pure’ math and as such ‘in a way’, though not really as I have already tried explaining, we are tying to solve an incompatible question with pure, or the wrong, tools.
Perhaps this is because pure maths takes no other system than itself into account?
Learn logic first. If I say "hey, here's a 'one'. Now let's add infinity to it!" and you say "ah no, let's not add infinity,", then I say "ohh I asked you this today so often, but you agreed exactly zero times to add infinity to it, well sorry, your 1 is now undefined!".
Solution: The "undefined" value is merely a (partial) agreement to provide meaning to certain fields of calculations. It has no *universal* validity.
That is not how it works if it comes to such abstract concepts as zero and/or infinity, if it did, then 1 to the power of infinity would be simply 1, but it isn't. Same for X to the power of zero should equal 0, but it doesn't ;)
There is logic to it just not as shallow as you might think. Just google this stuff. You'll find lot of sites that will explain it.
8x = 800% = 8/1
8 times BTC fees over 1 times all altcoins fees.
Now if the altcoins fees approach 0 to match the fee less case, the ratio's [limit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)) is infinity:
8 / 1 < 8 / 0.5 < 8 / 0.25 < 8 / 0.0000(...)01 < infinity